Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:41 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 46):
If you average out the C-130 sales you get ~44 a year (over 50 years). If I look at c-17s I get roughly 12 a year at 15 years. I see the market for the 400M being somewhere in the middle (logical conclusion based on size), probably slightly more in the C-17 space than the 400M.. so let's say ~20-~25 a year. Hardly a huge marketplace.

That is also of course assuming we think military buying will ever get back to the levels it was during the cold war (probably not realistic).. That means the ~20 a year number is probably closer.



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 46):
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the numbers add up any way you slice it.

Orisis, thats the kind of marketing pragmatism I like. I think nobody really expects this to become a viable commercial business. You are "wasting" public money on defense, it only costs. Ever made a business case on the F14, B1 of C-5? It's all about filling militairy needs / requirements in the most efficient way. The less the fly, the less they cost.

If EADS can export 10-15 aircraft per yr for many yrs they'll by happy I guess. If the USAF ever wants a A400 derivative, they EADS probably can't handle it & a large part of the supply chain has to be doubled, probably in the USA.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:11 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
Orisis, thats the kind of marketing pragmatism I like. I think nobody really expects this to become a viable commercial business. You are "wasting" public money on defense, it only costs. Ever made a business case on the F14, B1 of C-5? It's all about filling militairy needs / requirements in the most efficient way. The less the fly, the less they cost.

If EADS can export 10-15 aircraft per yr for many yrs they'll by happy I guess. If the USAF ever wants a A400 derivative, they EADS probably can't handle it & a large part of the supply chain has to be doubled, probably in the USA.

lol, were you drunk, when you typed this?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:52 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 51):
lol, were you drunk, when you typed this?

No, it's reality. Big grin

It may not be your world / perception, but many people see defense spending as a necessary waste of public money / young people they want to minimize.

With respect to the USAF & "C-400M". They need something bigger then the good old C-130 & cheaper / smaller then the mighty C-17. It's hard to choose if there's no alternative.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...ommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ould%20Dominate%20Strategic%20Lift

I suspect its a reason for all the efforts to bring down the A400M. The best airframe comes from the "wrong side of the ocean". Just like the e.g. JSF and KC-30.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:07 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 52):
With respect to the USAF & "C-400M". They need something bigger then the good old C-130 & cheaper / smaller then the mighty C-17.

Not really. The C-17 can perform in the tactical role when needed.

The A400 saga is running second only to the USAF tanker procurement comedy as defense soap opera. Here's the latest twist:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLH50458220090317?rpc=44

Quote:
PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - France may need to reduce its order for 50 A400M military transport planes from European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA) because of development delays, the country's top defence procurement official said on Tuesday.

 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:38 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 52):
With respect to the USAF & "C-400M". They need something bigger then the good old C-130 & cheaper / smaller then the mighty C-17

Problem I have with this, is that it now appears when comparing the two a/c that the "niche" one will cost more, by that I mean everyone agrees that the C-17 carries more further and faster than the A400M, the A400M advantage over the C-17 is supposed to be mostly cost, that now appears to be rapidly going out the door.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
Ever made a business case on the F14, B1 of C-5? It's all about filling militairy needs / requirements in the most efficient way.

We just talking bombers and fighters or military equipment in general,  Smile you should have been around for the tanker and EH-101 threads, they were certainely about much more than that.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm

I found an article that IMO sums up the A400M story pretty good.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...and-the-a400m:-the-real-story.html

Many sources suggest Lockheed Martin is apart from competing with EADS, also talking to them. Maybe Spirit & Pratt will also lunch at a chalet at the Paris Airshow. A win-win.

 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:26 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 52):
With respect to the USAF & "C-400M". They need something bigger then the good old C-130 & cheaper / smaller then the mighty C-17. It's hard to choose if there's no alternative.

You left yourself open on this one Keesje. The A400M, while it might fill a niche for the USAF, will never be purchased by the USAF. The difference in pricing to the C-17 will be written off to net increased capabilities and "buy American".

In a way this is like the current discussions in Germany on whether the German government helps Opel which in turn would help GM. BMW is on record stating that they will destroy any politician who votes for such assistance. If the USAF were to say they wanted the A400M, both BA and LM would blow their stacks and threaten political armageddon to anyone who would support such a move. This is different from the tanker issue as the 767 really isn't in the same league as the A330, and it was obvious that BA was only trying to keep an old airplane alive.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:52 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 56):
This is different from the tanker issue as the 767 really isn't in the same league as the A330, and it was obvious that BA was only trying to keep an old airplane alive.

What is different?

Note rumours are LM is studying a C130XL versus a A400USA. They say there are no "formal" talks and EADS are "friends". Little room for patriotic sentiments in a >100 billion market.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg/746px-YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:16 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
Orisis, thats the kind of marketing pragmatism I like. I think nobody really expects this to become a viable commercial business.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 57):
Little room for patriotic sentiments in a >100 billion market.

WOW!!!! I just thought I would point out the how hypocritical your posts on this thread have been. Which is it Keesje? Is it patriotism or is it business? Pick one and stick to it!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:24 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 58):
WOW!!!! I just thought I would point out the how hypocritical your posts on this thread have been. Which is it Keesje? Is it patriotism or is it business? Pick one and stick to it!

Oops, you obviously forgot to read the complete post. Blinded by patriotism maybe..

Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
If the USAF ever wants a A400 derivative, they EADS probably can't handle it & a large part of the supply chain has to be doubled, probably in the USA.

I suggest you read the two articles linked in reply 52 too. Also "hypocritical" I guess  Wink
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:41 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 59):
Blinded by patriotism maybe..

How ironic Keesje. Come on, you can do better than the old 'you didn't read the whole post' thing. I did read your whole post. In a post to me you went to great lengths to say that the business case is secondary when looking at military items. Then in another post you make the case that certain potential military partnerships can't be ignored due to the size of the market (business case). You in the span of 7 posts completely contradicted yourself.

If that wasn't your intention might I sugest you rework your arguement, because you seem to be argueing against yourself.

As for:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 59):
If the USAF ever wants a A400 derivative, they EADS probably can't handle it & a large part of the supply chain has to be doubled, probably in the USA.

Problem is, the ~20 a year I used for the 400M would include potential US orders. So the reality of the ~20 is even lower, but I'm not going to rule them out from ordering some 400M derivatives. The problem is I just don't see there being gobs of airlift bought going forward, certainly not at cold war levels, which is where most of today's lift came from.

So since I'm apparently missing what you're gettin at, which is it: The business case doesn't matter as you said in post 50 or it does matter as you are claiming in 57?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
Ever made a business case on the F14, B1 of C-5? It's all about filling militairy needs / requirements in the most efficient way. The



Quoting Keesje (Reply 57):
Note rumours are LM is studying a C130XL versus a A400USA. They say there are no "formal" talks and EADS are "friends". Little room for patriotic sentiments in a >100 billion market.

I just can't reconcile your logic in those two posts. They are completely opposed to each other! If I missed some sarcasm in there somewhere I'm sorry, but I can't really get your tone from your two line posts.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:19 pm

20 aircraft per year / 400 on top of the current 180 is a good number of airframes. Excluding a US order. How much they would need and how fast is IMO a seperate case.

As said 2200s C-130 were build and a good number of Russian machines.

Now they won't all be replaced by an aircraft twice as large. Some likely by C-27/C-390 size aircraft. Still a a400M forecast is difficlt to make, because there is no 40 tonnes cargo aircraft to be replaced & requirements have gone up.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 43):
The US has their airlift, and will for the foreseeable future order homebuilt airlift.



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 60):
Problem is, the ~20 a year I used for the 400M would include potential US orders.



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 60):
I just can't reconcile your logic in those two posts.

 Wink

Without all the nitpicking / selective quoting I have the feeling we basicly agree on the market situation basics.

Just found this article on a last yr Flightglobal blog: "The A400M plot thickens" A EADS market forecast that (surprizingly ?!) comes with similar figures.


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...08/02/the-a400m-plot-thickens.html

Note from Stephen Trimble:

"Note to EADS: you may wish to refrain from listing your market projections for the Chinese market on the same slide as the US market for the same aircraft."  Silly
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:44 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
This talk of moving the wing work is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. It's not like there are a whole bunch of companies out there equipped and with the requisite experience to do it.

And yet, Boeing subcontractors are assembling barrels in South Carolina because it meets a strategic need, to move work to a non-union premises. Some times companies do stupid things in the short term because they think they are the right things to do in the long term.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
If Airbus was foolish enough to make such an important decision on the basis of whether or not the British government decides to bail on the A400, then Airbus is in deep, deep trouble and will probably end up falling on their face.

I don't see it that way. If Airbus looses UK on the A400M it's in big trouble. If it looses both Germany and the UK, it's in huge trouble. Desperate times call for desperate measures, or at least the threat of dire consequences.

As per above, France is now talking about reducing the number of A400M frames they will take.

A400M may die the death of a thousand cuts.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 61):
Just found this article on a last yr Flightglobal blog: "The A400M plot thickens" A EADS market forecast that (surprizingly ?!) comes with similar figures.

I find two things extremely funny with that slide; first of all as noted US and Chinese orders on the same slide. This either indicates EADS has no grasp on reality or are being completely dishonest. I would also add some of Latin America to that list. If we remove the US and China/CIS (which I think we will all agree are among some of the least likely customers of the 400M due to having home grown industry to protect) you get ~400 frames.

I can't for the life of me see how Australia is going to order !50! A400Ms by 2025. 20 Maybe, but even that is pushing it. That's the other thing I find funny about this chart. I can't remotely begin to justify any of their numbers. 2025 is only 16 years away and military procurement isn't something that happens overnight as we all know.

Now, just a quick point of clarification, I wasn't excluding US orders from my prediction of 20-25 a year, because I can't say for certain they won't order. However, I don't feel it's likely they will hence the 20 a year is likely optimistic. I will accept full responsibility for not making that clearer earlier. In fairness some historically 'Soviet' orders may be up for grabs though, so I think that offsets back to 20 a year being a reasonable number without US involvement.

To tie that all together, if I take EADS's chart and halve their forecast we are in the 12-13 frame a year ballpark. So maybe 15 is fair (note that 12-13 is excluding the US, China and Russia as pointed out above). All in all my original numbers don't seem to have missed the mark by all that much, which brings me back to, depending on the cost of the frames, is this program even worth it, for anyone involved or is the money better spent elsewhere where EADS has some knowledge and expertise they can truly leverage. Maybe the Eurocopter division (ah-64 replacement) or commercial or hell even space. You don't have to participate in ever facet of military consturction to be a viable military contractor.

Mil lift is a niche market. Always has been, always will be.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:20 pm

OCCAR is saying the "operational delay" will be four years.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3994153&c=EUR&s=AIR

Quote:
An audit by OCCAR, the European arms agency, shows that the A400M's "operational delay" will be four years, Collet-Billon of the Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) said at a press conference on the DGA's 2008 results. That is longer than the three-year delay EADS previously announced.

EADS plans to deliver "a first aircraft after three years, with the second aircraft shipped after four years," Collet-Billon said.

A year between the delivery of the first and second aircraft?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27721
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:54 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
And yet, Boeing subcontractors are assembling barrels in South Carolina because it meets a strategic need, to move work to a non-union premises. Some times companies do stupid things in the short term because they think they are the right things to do in the long term.

The difference is, what we're talking about would be the effective equivalent of Boeing, today, announcing because they were disappointed in Vought's performance, were immediately pulling their contract to build barrels and instead will build new Section 47s and 48s with a new supplier at a new facility in a new location - all of which is to be determined at a future date yet to be determined.

So all those customers whose 787's Section 47 and 48 have not yet been built are going to need to wait for that new plant before final assembly of their 787s can begin and in the interim, the 787 FAL will lie idle once it has built and delivered what planes it has parts for.

Yeah, that would really go over well...  Wink
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:15 am

I cut & pasted a C-43 in PowerPoint  Wink

 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:45 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 66):
I cut & pasted a C-43 in PowerPoint

So... er.. They are going to do a whole new plane with minimal commonality with the A400 and expect it not to be a complete ClusterF given the current A400 situation?

C17 same price, better performance, infinitely less risk....
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:01 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
This talk of moving the wing work is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. It's not like there are a whole bunch of companies out there equipped and with the requisite experience to do it.

Or the facilities......
It's inconceiveble that EADS will spend EBn's recreating expensive facilities that already exist, and then also incur countless EBn's of delay costs to every current production programme from the ensuing halt in production. Of every airliner programme. For a long period of time.
And delay the A350XWB for a good few years
Because that's what will happen.

The wing work is going nowhere  no 

Rgds
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:40 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 56):
This is different from the tanker issue as the 767 really isn't in the same league as the A330, and it was obvious that BA was only trying to keep an old airplane alive.

Why? Which US military transport aircaft below the C-17 is in the same league as the A400?

Sure the US could build a new aircraft in that class. Why not? Does the world demand only sustain one A400-sized offering? I think the US should built a new one too. Why is this not considered? The US should stop to update old models like the C-130 all the time.

C-130, C-135, F-15, 767 are not platforms to built the future upon. Leave that field to the IRIAF:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mehdy - Iranian Spotters



If a new built C-130 replacement is not possible, its only logical to consider the A400. If the 767 is in another league than the A330 then every C130 update must be in another universe than the A400. Start from scratch or buy A400's that will be the options in maybe 10..20 years.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:08 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 67):
whole new plane with minimal commonality with the A400

? no ? Just produced and adjusted by US partners in Long Beach or Alabama.

I think most people expect such an offer to come on table supported by a major US OEM. From a requirements perspective on a AN-70 based alliance comes close. But that has its own restrictions / risks.

The existing fleet C-17's will form the backbone for strategic transport for decades to come. The upcoming requirements is for bigger FCS transport to replace part of the Hercules fleet.

I think if USAF requirements are translated into a realistic new design, a A400 ish design comes up & I'll take 8 yrs.

LM, Boeing, NG, General Dynamics Raytheon know and still want a piece of the pie. Evaluate, wait and see can be wise or stupid. I have the feeling the battle behind the scenes started early 2008.

EADS can't do it without a big US partner for various reasons.

 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:47 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 69):
Why? Which US military transport aircaft below the C-17 is in the same league as the A400?

We do not know what class the A400M is. Until they settle on what they are going to defer or cancel capability wise, the A400M is an unknown featuring a new class of power plant. Is it just a bigger more costly C-130? Is it a smaller less capable C-17? As the cost of the A400M rises (and it will during the upcoming negotiations) the cost benefit over the C-17 will disappear.

Whether the A400M was a jobs program when first envisioned can be debated. However, without a doubt it is now. This is why eventually France, Germany and Spain will keep their orders even as the cost soars to the point where the C-17 would actually be a better buy.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:04 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 64):
A year between the delivery of the first and second aircraft?

I think this is just a poorly worded version of:

The first aircraft will be delivered in the last month of the 3rd year and the second in the 4th year.

Or something similar to the above. I.e. not a full year between, but rather nearly a full 4 year delay on the first. And if they are in that kind of a window I'd be willing to bet now we don't see the frames untill well into year 4.

I also haven't heard much about the ramp other than EADS wanting to slow the plan, so the impact could be 5 or 6 years for frames at the end of the order.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:21 pm

One German official states that canceling some A400M orders is a "serious" option.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3997003&c=EUR&s=AIR

Quote:
FRANKFURT, Germany - German Deputy Defence Minister Ruediger Wolf said March 19 that canceling orders for the problem-plagued Airbus A400M military transport plane was a serious option.

Wolf told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that to bring pressure on Airbus' parent company EADS, "cancellation must be a serious option after a delay of three to six months."

Is this mere posturing? I think so. I continue to believe that Germany, France, Spain, and most likely the UK, will stay with all their orders. Will they find interim fixes, like purchasing or leasing other aircraft? Probably.

[Edited 2009-03-19 07:47:04]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:52 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 73):
Wolf told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that to bring pressure on Airbus' parent company EADS, "cancellation must be a serious option after a delay of three to six months."

I think governments in the world are getting sick of being taken hostage by big defense conglomerates overpromising to get the deal and then adjust when there's no way back.

A global issue I guess.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:10 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Some *huge* news from EADS themselves:

Quote:
Gallois told reporters that France, Germany and Spain were ready to renegotiate the contract but Britain(sic) had not yet made up its mind. The Tories have said they would cancel.

Gallois indicated that governments could cancel orders for individual planes but insisted: "This plane meets the needs of our customers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...rning



Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
More rumblings that hint at UK cancellation:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ors/engineering/article5884208.ece

Quote:
One possibility is to scrap the project altogether, which is thought to be favoured by the Royal Air Force. The Commons Defence Committee also recommended last month that Britain(sic) should pull out of the A400M programme. The MoD may also choose to reduce the number of aircraft ordered and replace them with C17s from Boeing or C130Js from Lockheed Martin.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 53):
Here's the latest twist:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLH50458220090317?rpc=44

Quote:
PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - France may need to reduce its order for 50 A400M military transport planes from European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA) because of development delays, the country's top defence procurement official said on Tuesday.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 73):
One German official states that canceling some A400M orders is a "serious" option.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3997003&c=EUR&s=AIR

Quote:
FRANKFURT, Germany - German Deputy Defence Minister Ruediger Wolf said March 19 that canceling orders for the problem-plagued Airbus A400M military transport plane was a serious option.

Wolf told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that to bring pressure on Airbus' parent company EADS, "cancellation must be a serious option after a delay of three to six months."

Britian(sic), France and Germany have all issued their (idle?) threats.

Should be interesting to see what (if anything) comes of all of this.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 73):
Is this mere posturing? I think so. I continue to believe that Germany, France, Spain, and most likely the UK, will stay with all their orders.

As above, it's about the only posture they can take, other than bending over, but it'll lead no where other than cacellation of the program or a rediculously high cost per frame.

Airbus says it'll cost X1 frames will cost Y1. The customers say they can't afford Y1/X1 per frame so let's have X2 frames for cost Y2. Of course, the customers want Y2/X2 to be the same cost per frame Y1/X1 as before, yet Airbus can't agree to it, since the fixed costs must be amortized over a smaller number of frames.

The smaller number of frames, the higher the cost per frame. It's the B2 syndrome all over again.

Ironically, the smaller the number of frames, the less work that flows into the customer's nations (UK wings, GER engine and fuse parts, FRA cockpits, SPA assembly and test, etc).

It seems more and more to me the two options are either let the bloody thing run its course, or kill it. If it's the former, one must complement EADS on how they've totally taken their customers to the cleaners.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
I think governments in the world are getting sick of being taken hostage by big defense conglomerates overpromising to get the deal and then adjust when there's no way back.


Interestingly enough, the A400M customers wrote all kinds of protections into the contract so this couldn't happen to them. The problem seems to be they don't have the spine to actually enforce the contract stipulations. If EADS was smart enough to recognize this all along, then again, hats off to EADS.

The terrible economy is of course playing right into EADS's hands as well.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:29 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 69):
Why? Which US military transport aircaft below the C-17 is in the same league as the A400?

None, as a airlifter between the C-130 and the C-17 is not now or has it ever been needed.

The C-17 was built to replace the C-141 not to create a new category. So the C-5, C-17 and C-130 mix is all that is needed.

The A400 was designed to fit between the C-130 and the C-17 because the Europeans would not invest enough money in their military for three different size airlifters.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:10 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 76):
None, as a airlifter between the C-130 and the C-17 is not now or has it ever been needed.

and in a chicken and egg situation the growth of "small" combat vehicles to a box larger than will fix in a C130 happened after they were SURE that the A400 would be their transport of choice into the future. So there was no incentive to NOT build to the A400's cargo bay for the vehicle companies. Which makes the A400 "the" choice if you somehow forget the C17 exists and is a relative bargin in this market. The C130 certainly doesn't work to replace it for these new large vehicles
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:23 am

Guys,

Question after reading this: http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry..._--_at_least/UPI-79141238010317/2/

Nothing really new in there, but I did notice:

Quote:
As we have previously reported in these columns, the A400M is also having trouble with the new engines that were specially developed for it. They are not as powerful as they were supposed to be and significantly reduced the aircraft's projected range and cargo-carrying capacity.

I haven't heard that the engine was under powered before.. can anyone shed anymore light on that??
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27721
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:21 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 78):
I haven't heard that the engine was under powered before.. can anyone shed anymore light on that?

The engine has flown three test flights on a C-130 over the past two months. At a press conference on March 10, EADS CEO Louis Gallois stated that all three tests were successful and that the results were "very positive".

He also noted that the problem is not the engine itself, but Gallois its implementation into the A400M because of problems with the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC).

In the latest aero.de, MTU Chief Executive Egon Behle also noted that the problems with the A400M were not unique to the engine.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:29 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
At a press conference on March 10, EADS CEO Louis Gallois stated that all three tests were successful and that the results were "very positive".

Let's consider the source. They still say 3 years and the procurement agency says 4 based on their audit, so...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
He also noted that the problem is not the engine itself, but Gallois its implementation into the A400M because of problems with the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC).

Part of me is dieing to know exactly wtf is going on there.. part of me is scared of the answer.

I'm not saying I think the engine is under performing, but it sure would be nice if a reputable third party could confirm some of the assertions one way or the other. I googled for europrop news and there has been nothing in quite a while, which is surprising given the vast number of articles on the 400M.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27721
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:29 pm

To be honest, I am not sure only three tests flights is enough to provide data either supporting or discounting planned/expected performance.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:12 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):

To be honest, I am not sure only three tests flights is enough to provide data either supporting or discounting planned/expected performance.

It can support that things are a complete ClusterF, and not right.

might not be evidence of how hard/easy it is to fix all the issues, but proof that its not correct right now just takes 1 flight.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:40 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 75):

Interestingly enough, the A400M customers wrote all kinds of protections into the contract so this couldn't happen to them. The problem seems to be they don't have the spine to actually enforce the contract stipulations. If EADS was smart enough to recognize this all along, then again, hats off to EADS.

On CivAv, Astuteman says EADS has 9B EUR in the bank, and an additional untapped credit line of EUR 3B. It seems pretty cheeky of EADS to cry hardship, doesn't it?

I wonder if the customers will have the spine to bring up EADS's bank balance during the contract negotiations?

If EADS can get the EUR 5B they are looking for from the customers as an overrun of a fixed price contract, and can keep their EUR 9B in the bank too, hats off to them.

I guess we'll find out how "daft" EADS is after all!  Smile
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
At a press conference on March 10, EADS CEO Louis Gallois stated that all three tests were successful and that the results were "very positive".

Yes, and in September 2006 EADS said "A400M powerplant run exactly as expected!"

Remember those halcyon days?



I guess they had some pretty low expectations, given that it's the powerplant that is allegedly holding up the entire program.

I guess the real truth lies in what you don't say...

The old sin of omission versus the sin of commission argument...

Ref: http://www.a400m-countdown.com/index.php?v=2

See also: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...resent-no-issues-for-europrop.html

[Edited 2009-03-27 08:21:09]
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:42 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
On CivAv, Astuteman says EADS has 9B EUR in the bank, and an additional untapped credit line of EUR 3B. It seems pretty cheeky of EADS to cry hardship, doesn't it?

I think EADS is doing what any other commercial entity would do, which is to avoid expending its own financial resources when it knows there's a possibility that someone else will expend their own. I think they have matured as a defense contractor and are acting like a lot of other defense contractors who continuously try to tap into their client government coffers for more money.

On another note but reflective of some of the issues you've raised, I thought this comment was very telling by Mr. Gallois:

Quote:
Mr Gallois termed the commercial terms around the A400M "a huge mistake for the company".

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41108158-18eb-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html

That only goes to show EADS is trying to better the terms of their contractual obligations. I'd do the same with my company if I were in the same situation.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:35 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
If EADS can get the EUR 5B they are looking for from the customers as an overrun of a fixed price contract, and can keep their EUR 9B in the bank too, hats off to them.

 yes 
Definitely popcorn time.........

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 85):
On another note but reflective of some of the issues you've raised, I thought this comment was very telling by Mr. Gallois:

Quote:
Mr Gallois termed the commercial terms around the A400M "a huge mistake for the company".

I guess if you asked them, BAE Systems would say pretty much the same about the original let of the Astute contract...... (IMO rightly so.....)

Rgds
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:36 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
On CivAv, Astuteman says EADS has 9B EUR in the bank, and an additional untapped credit line of EUR 3B

PS - this was straight from their year end accounts, by the way..

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:48 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 85):
That only goes to show EADS is trying to better the terms of their contractual obligations. I'd do the same with my company if I were in the same situation.

Yes, that's normal capitalist behavior.

I think the A400M customers thought they had some protections in the contract to prevent themselves from such terrible cost overruns.

And also some of those customers might have felt they have leverage given that they own large blocks of EADS.

Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Seems the customers won't agree to all pull out together, so the only leverage they have is to just refuse delivery due to lateness, which will make it all land in court.

Given how bad the US has done with respect to the A-12 cancellation, I doubt that will end up working to the customer's benefit.

Seems EADS is holding most of the cards here.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 85):
Quote:
Mr Gallois termed the commercial terms around the A400M "a huge mistake for the company".

Implicitly making Foregeard's regime the fall guys - good move!

Quote:

EADS's chief executive warned European politicians that any shortfall in orders for its ailing A400M military tanker aircraft would have "an industrial impact", as well as making each plane more expensive.

C'mon Uncle Louis, don't be such a worry wart - you've got E9B in the bank!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
I guess if you asked them, BAE Systems would say pretty much the same about the original let of the Astute contract......

Are you using that British gift for understatement?  Smile

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):
PS - this was straight from their year end accounts, by the way..

No doubt .
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:00 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 88):
EADS's chief executive warned European politicians that any shortfall in orders for its ailing A400M military tanker aircraft would have "an industrial impact", as well as making each plane more expensive.

This seems to be a threat on where certain work gets done, doesn't it?

Uncle Louis may need to watch that he doesn't overplay his cards here.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:32 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 88):
EADS's chief executive warned European politicians that any shortfall in orders for its ailing A400M military tanker aircraft would have "an industrial impact", as well as making each plane more expensive.

*Bad* move on this part if that's actually a quote from him. Some of the customers of the frame may not care for that threat at all. If he (Gallois) has forgotten, his job is basically owned by the very people he's attempting to threaten. If that quote is really something he spat out I would add it's starting to sound desperate on his end. I can't help but think some governments want nothing to do with a price increase, consequences be damned right now.

Funny thing is, I'm having a hard time Gallois actually said that. He's proven very savvy up to this point.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Yes, and in September 2006 EADS said "A400M powerplant run exactly as expected!"

Remember those halcyon days?

Hence why I asked for clarification of that point. An under powered engine overweight frame = DISASTER (sorry but pure disaster, no other word).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):
PS - this was straight from their year end accounts, by the way..

Citing yourself as a source usually means the information is credible around here IMHO, regardless of where you got it  Wink Kidding aside:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
Definitely popcorn time.........

 checkmark 
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:12 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
*Bad* move on this part if that's actually a quote from him. Some of the customers of the frame may not care for that threat at all. If he (Gallois) has forgotten, his job is basically owned by the very people he's attempting to threaten.

All the contrite statements about how stupid Airbus was to sign the contract are really clever.

I think Airbus is acting like a spoiled child. And I think the governments who are the parents won't want to admit thier child is spoiled and will still give it everything it wants, rather than admit their child is a problem child.

All the bad economic news works into Airbus's favor. Airbus will say any reduction in orders means a reduction in jobs, and that will get the politicians very nervous.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
I can't help but think some governments want nothing to do with a price increase, consequences be damned right now.

It seems both sides have put out their positions in the public: customers threatening to cut back or eliminate A400M plans, Airbus threatening "industrial impacts" should they do so.

The fly in the ointment could be the big wad of cash EADS has in the bank. If the custmers are smart, they'll say that you signed a fixed-price contract, and you have enough cash to make it right, so do it!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
Funny thing is, I'm having a hard time Gallois actually said that. He's proven very savvy up to this point.

The source is the Financial Times link from above:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41108158-18eb-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html

Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

FT is a pretty reliable source, it's more or less the WSJ of Europe.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
Definitely popcorn time.........[/quote[quote=Osiris30,reply=90]Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
Definitely popcorn time.........

 checkmark 

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

But when's the popcorn being served?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:49 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
All the contrite statements about how stupid Airbus was to sign the contract are really clever.

I suspect a lot may depend on some of the sub-terranean Politics (with a big P) that went on around the A400M contracts.

If these contracts were let without "interference", then EADS should "take it on the chin, and either stump up the extra, or pull the programme - a purely commercial choice.

I have to say that, in the case of Astute, there was enough "happening" to make the concensus view that the liability for the delays and overruns should be shared (in some proportion, that I'm not at liberty to reveal) between HMG and the contractor.
Not saying that I know this is the case in this instance, but I harbour a suspicion that military procurement is not as "pure" a process as civilian procurement.....  biggrin 

Running out of popcorn.
Do Sugar Puffs count?  Wink

Rgds
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:25 am

Enders is being slightly more blunt. As a former soldier, he understands "shaping the battlefield".
Airbus CEO says A400M programme could fail-paper

Quote:
FRANKFURT, March 29 (Reuters) - European airplane maker Airbus (EAD.PA) may not be able to complete the A400M military transport plane programme, Airbus's chief executive told a German magazine.

"Under the current conditions we cannot build the plane," Enders told Spiegel Online in an interview on Sunday, adding it would be better to make a painful break than draw out the agony.

I still maintain that the original participants in this program will accede to any demands EADS makes in order to keep this program alive.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:47 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 93):
I still maintain that the original participants in this program will accede to any demands EADS makes in order to keep this program alive.

If there is less financial risk from pulling the programme (at this stage) than continuing, this could be quite a real threat...

Rgds
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 94):
If there is less financial risk from pulling the programme (at this stage) than continuing, this could be quite a real threat...

I don't doubt Enders' or Gallois' sincerity on the A400M; they admit they made mistakes. However, I doubt the statements of some defense officials quoted in the press, that they will cancel in whole or in part--unless, of course, the problems with the aircraft are worse than disclosed to date. Politically, it is impossible for them to walk away and buy American. They know this; EADS knows this. IMVHO, in the end, they'll cave and EADS will get its restructured contract--probably a "cost plus" arrangement.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26996
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:48 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 92):
I have to say that, in the case of Astute, there was enough "happening" to make the concensus view that the liability for the delays and overruns should be shared (in some proportion, that I'm not at liberty to reveal) between HMG and the contractor.

Yes, we really don't know what went on during the letting of the contract.

Did EADS honestly think they could deliver on the contract as agreed, or did they take the contract knowing they'd find a way to get more money out of the customers later?

Did the customers honestly expect EADS could deliver on the contract, or did they too feel they'd find a way to cover overruns?

In any case, I think those calculations didn't anticipate a E5B cost overrun or a plane that may not meet performance or functional specifications.

Even if the parties split the difference on the overrun, the size of the overrun makes it very difficult to swallow.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 93):
"Under the current conditions we cannot build the plane," Enders told Spiegel Online in an interview on Sunday, adding it would be better to make a painful break than draw out the agony.

And yet they are willing to prolong the agony on the A380.

The difference here is of course their customers have access to the government coffers, and all it takes to access this pot of gold is some skilled negotiating.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 93):
I still maintain that the original participants in this program will accede to any demands EADS makes in order to keep this program alive.

You could very well be right, but it's a whopper of a cost overrun and it is true EADS is sitting on a lot of money in the bank. EADS will have to appear to be taking a hit on the program.

Astuteman's mention of EADS and the customers sharing the hit with some undisclosed percentages of who takes what hit would meet this criteria, but in the end, it may be too big a hit to be swallowed.

On the other hand, the customers really need the airplanes.

So, I'd say odds are 70% in favor of a compromise being struck, 30% in favor of the program unravelling one way or another.

It really is a large hit we're talking about, and some of the governments involved may not be in a position to take the hit, and all it takes is one customer to substantially reduce their order or pull out for it all to unravel IMHO.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 95):
I don't doubt Enders' or Gallois' sincerity on the A400M; they admit they made mistakes.

This is easy for them to do because they weren't around at the time the contract was signed. All they are doing is admitting their predecessors screwed up, and in so doing, it aids their negotiating position. Hats off!

Looking contrite is a good move on their part. Chances are they will get most of what they want, and their best move is to put on their sad faces in public as they quietly raid the government's coffers.

Gallois's threats of industrial consequences seem to be going a bit too far.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:20 pm

More from Enders. Although this article appears in the UK Telegraph, it quotes from an interview Enders gave to Der Spiegel. Enders seems to be calling out the governments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ry-transport-aircraft-project.html

Quote:
"The aircraft can't be built under the current conditions," said Thomas Enders, chief executive of Europe's planemaker, in an interview with Der Spiegel.

"It is better to put an end to the horror than have horror without end."
* * * *
Mr Enders said Airbus had made "big mistakes" but also lashed out at the EU and the US, deeming it "bizarre" that governments are turning their back on aeronautics yet spending billions rescuing banks.

He said Airbus will not make "a pilgrimage to Berlin or Paris" to plead for help. Germany, France, Spain, and Britain, which all host Airbus plants, are loath to see a prestige venture collapse with heavy job losses.

EADS has so far held up well through the aviation slump, making €1.57bn in profit last year.

I'm curious as to why he's "lashing out" at the U.S.?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:31 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 97):
I'm curious as to why he's "lashing out" at the U.S.?

Judging from the article you reference, my guess is he just lumped the U.S. in with the EU when he was lashing out at governments for giving money directly to banks and not the aerospace industry. He seems to be implying that if governments are quick to step up and open their pockets for other industries, why don't they step up and open their pockets on the A400m?

My take on that viewpoint is that when the aerospace industry, and EADS specifically, gets into the business of loaning consumers money then he can look forward to getting aid money directly from his sponsor governments.

Of course, he might be speaking too soon as his sponsor governments may yet toss him a lifeline.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 2

Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:38 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 98):

Judging from the article you reference, my guess is he just lumped the U.S. in with the EU when he was lashing out at governments for giving money directly to banks and not the aerospace industry. He seems to be implying that if governments are quick to step up and open their pockets for other industries, why don't they step up and open their pockets on the A400m?

That's not a very good argument to make if he wants the USAF to acquire KC-30's. If his contention is that governments should support home grown solutions, he must be planning on ceding the KC-X competition to Boeing...right...?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos